RE: Ketogenic Diets for Endurance Athletes

[Guest guest]

That an endurance runner would perform best on a ketogenic diet is

superficially obvious, given the most basic knowledge of physiology.

The heart burns primarily fat, not carbohydrate, as energy, even in

normal resting conditions for someone on a standard diet.

And, as probably everyone who's had high school biology already knows

(I'm guessing; I never took it), endurance activities emphasize

fat-burning, while glycogen is generally reserved for intense and

fleeting muscle movements, such as weight lifting or intense

sprinting.

So, that a ketogenic diet is preferable for an endurance athlete seems

obvious to me. What I wonder is how a ketogenic diet works for a

weight lifter. I've consistently made it a point for the last couple

years to eat plenty of carbs to make sure I'm replacing my glycogen

stores. What I'm wondering is if my body would make glycogen from

FAT. I know that the body will break fat down into simple carbs under

certain conditions, so it would only need to build up from there. I

haven't reviewed the physiology, and I don't know if it makes sense to

build glycogen from ketones or not.

I imagine such a diet might put additional stress on the body by

increasing enzyme synthesis. On the other hand, I think a starch-free

diet would probably be more nutrient-dense, assuming quality

ingredients, which might over-compensate for any additional stressors.

What I'm wondering is, if I were, as a weight lifter, to eat 50g

carb/day, for example, would my body simply adjust to it and continue

to gain strength and muscle while shredding fat, or would I run out of

glycogen and have my workouts bomb?

Chris

On 7/17/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Hi y'all.

>

> As you know, I just got back into running two months ago and have been

> pretty low carb for some time now. I noticed straight away that I had

> no energy fluctuations eating little carbs whilst running 15-25 miles a

> week, whereas in the past, I would suffer highs and lows. BTW, I never

> eat before running, unless it is afternoon, which ain't happening in

> Texas summertime. Thus, I began to research this apparent enigma to the

> supposed need for high carbohydrate diets in endurance athletes. What I

> have found is that once the body adapts to a ketogenic diet (one that is

> high in fat, not protein) then the body becomes a great fat oxidizer

> spares muscle glycogen. Mind you, I am not trying to be in a state of

> ketosis, but I picked up some urine test strips recently, and sure

> enough, I am definitely ketogenic the last few days at least. My diet

> hasn't changed, so probably for a month or so it has been this way. I

> must eat at least 20-40% of calories a day in the form of carbohydrate,

> 15-20% protein and a good 40-65% fat. I feel great and can go for miles

> without issue in terms of energy needs. The heat is the limiting factor

> for me now.

>

> The whole idea behind carbo-loading seems to be mythical at best, and

> could well be detrimental to the long term health when perceived energy

> needs supersede the true need for a nutrient dense diet. Runners are

> big on pasta, potatoes and sugary energy drinks, low in fat AND low on

> protein too, when you look analytically at the diet these folks

> generally espouse. I plan to continue training this way and

> participating in the half marathon autumn and/or winter. I have found

> that my northern style traditional eating is just dandy with an active

> lifestyle. And why shouldn't it be? Price's natives surely got much

> more in the way of activity than most modern SAD folks do. And besides,

> I am a Scot like Liddell, though I sure don't run like he did.

>

> The carb-loading myth, it's beginnings and subsequent acceptance as

> truth in our society (and most athletic circles globally) is a great

> read for anyone interested in recent dietary history. You needn't be an

> athlete to gain insight into dietary dogma from this piece:

> http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Deanna,

> The whole idea behind carbo-loading seems to be mythical at best, and

> could well be detrimental to the long term health when

> perceived energy

> needs supersede the true need for a nutrient dense diet.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit as I've been watching as much of

the Tour de France live on TV as I've been able to fit into my schedule.

Today was a great day for those of you who missed it, btw. Unbelievable

performance by Lance and the rest riding up and down mountains that would

simply kill me to even walk.

I completely agree with you that low carb/high fat works very well for

people who are adapted to it but I suspect that no one will ever win a truly

championship race eating that kind of diet. The carb burners are FAST.

Those who are adapted for processing sugary carbs will always beat the slow

steady energy producers who process fat well. Name a sport in which the

dominant players eat low carb. Extreme distance runners maybe? All the

rest of the champions in almost all of the sports eat carbs and process them

properly.

Now long term health -- that's another story and another question.

Ron

[Guest guest]

RE: Ketogenic Diets for Endurance Athletes

Hi Deanna,

> The whole idea behind carbo-loading seems to be mythical at best, and

> could well be detrimental to the long term health when

> perceived energy

> needs supersede the true need for a nutrient dense diet.

" I've been thinking about this quite a bit as I've been watching as much of

the Tour de France live on TV as I've been able to fit into my schedule.

Today was a great day for those of you who missed it, btw. Unbelievable

performance by Lance and the rest riding up and down mountains that would

simply kill me to even walk.

I completely agree with you that low carb/high fat works very well for

people who are adapted to it but I suspect that no one will ever win a truly

championship race eating that kind of diet. The carb burners are FAST.

Those who are adapted for processing sugary carbs will always beat the slow

steady energy producers who process fat well. Name a sport in which the

dominant players eat low carb. Extreme distance runners maybe? All the

rest of the champions in almost all of the sports eat carbs and process them

properly. "

How many of them have actually taken the time to adapt to low carb diets to

see how they do? If the prevailing wisdom is that you need lots of carbs,

and therefore a high enough percentage of athletes follow this advice, then

perhaps there are too few athletes who have been eating low carb to reach a

conclusion?

[Guest guest]

On 7/17/05, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> How many of them have actually taken the time to adapt to low carb diets to

> see how they do? If the prevailing wisdom is that you need lots of carbs,

> and therefore a high enough percentage of athletes follow this advice, then

> perhaps there are too few athletes who have been eating low carb to reach a

> conclusion?

I suspect as much. And, additionally, typical fats don't include much

in the way of MCTs and MCFAs, which would supply a " quick " energy on

the level of carbs if tried.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> How many of them have actually taken the time to adapt to low

> carb diets to

> see how they do? If the prevailing wisdom is that you need

> lots of carbs,

> and therefore a high enough percentage of athletes follow

> this advice, then

> perhaps there are too few athletes who have been eating low

> carb to reach a

> conclusion?

Yes. Those are great questions and ones that I've considered. The answer

is unknowable, of course, until such time as that happens BUT the current

evidence is almost 100% against -- I can't think of any champions in any

sport who eat low carb full time or even most of the time.

Ron

[Guest guest]

>That an endurance runner would perform best on a ketogenic diet is

>superficially obvious, given the most basic knowledge of physiology.

>The heart burns primarily fat, not carbohydrate, as energy, even in

>normal resting conditions for someone on a standard diet.

>

>

The heart is but one muscle required in endurance sports. The legs of a

runner are consuming vast amounts of energy too. These muscles do adapt

over time to oxidize more fat and spare more glycogen. The heart grows

bigger and stronger over years of training, and the muscles of distance

runners can store up to three times the glycogen as your average Joe. I

wonder why that is if it's such a basic fat-burning sport? Tergat

holds the men's world's record in the marathon at 2:04:55. a

Radcliffe is not too far behind at 2:15:25 for women. At these speeds,

about 4.77 minutes per mile and 5.17minutes per mile respectively (12.58

mph and 11.61 mph iow), do you think these folks are running these long

(26.2 mile) distances at these incredible speeds aerobically,

anaerobically or both? Both.

>And, as probably everyone who's had high school biology already knows

>(I'm guessing; I never took it), endurance activities emphasize

>fat-burning, while glycogen is generally reserved for intense and

>fleeting muscle movements, such as weight lifting or intense

>sprinting.

>

>

It is plainly not that simple. Perhaps that is why universities offer

degree programs in exercise physiology, sports medicine and the like.

Basic biology looks at the average Joe, and athletes are not average

folks. Again, the anaerobic threshold is probably reached off and on,

depending on the intensity and length of the endurance sport, and those

that are both - like the Tour de France and marathon for example -

require both pathways. Athletes are a special subclass of the general

population. The body adapts to training in many ways, and it is my

belief that exercise is more important to good health than diet.

Athletes must be studied separately.

>So, that a ketogenic diet is preferable for an endurance athlete seems

>obvious to me. What I wonder is how a ketogenic diet works for a

>weight lifter. I've consistently made it a point for the last couple

>years to eat plenty of carbs to make sure I'm replacing my glycogen

>stores. What I'm wondering is if my body would make glycogen from

>FAT. I know that the body will break fat down into simple carbs under

>certain conditions, so it would only need to build up from there. I

>haven't reviewed the physiology, and I don't know if it makes sense to

>build glycogen from ketones or not.

>

>

Runners are weight lifters - it is a powerful high volume style training

for the legs. Body builders are a different class of weight lifter, of

course. Gluconeogenesis is one way to get more glucose from lactate and

amino acids. But what little research I have seen indicates that the

body will adapt to the fuels presented to it over time. Endurance

athletes become better fat oxidizers in the absence of glycogen stores.

I don't know if body builders have been studied much in this regard. I

think fat phobia is common in both groups generally.

For me, a pretty regularly well-trained endurance recreational athlete

mainly for 24 years, I am burning up the carbs quite well doing slow

pace distance running, considering I eat maybe about 200-800 kcals of

carbs a day on average and still remain in ketosis. I'll have to start

keeping a food diary as part of my training journal to see for sure what

I am truly taking in. What I expend is about 2300+ kcals a week in

running alone. I only strength train and cross train with other

endurance activities once a week each. Also, I do pretty gentle yoga

now daily as my legs are getting really buff from running.

Deanna, the mesomorph

[Guest guest]

>[Ron] I completely agree with you that low carb/high fat works very well for

>people who are adapted to it but I suspect that no one will ever win a truly

>championship race eating that kind of diet. The carb burners are FAST.

>Those who are adapted for processing sugary carbs will always beat the slow

>steady energy producers who process fat well. Name a sport in which the

>dominant players eat low carb. Extreme distance runners maybe? All the

>rest of the champions in almost all of the sports eat carbs and process them

>properly. "

>

>

I think it remains to be seen which diet is best for competitive

athletes. Fat loading is beginning to hit the scene in some small

circles. But it is highly unorthodox and so unhealthy too to eat too

many fats, especially those evil saturated fats, lol. Also, we haven't

even considered muscle fiber types, and these do influence speed,

duration and such.

>[Gene] How many of them have actually taken the time to adapt to low carb diets

to

>see how they do? If the prevailing wisdom is that you need lots of carbs,

>and therefore a high enough percentage of athletes follow this advice, then

>perhaps there are too few athletes who have been eating low carb to reach a

>conclusion?

>

Not many, in answer to your first question. You are exactly on target

that the " prevailing wisdom " or what I would call " perpetuating myths "

are keeping the winds of change at bay. It is much like the cholesterol

heart attack myth that just doesn't go away no matter how hard we try

and refute it. Just because it's been cited over and over again doesn't

mean it's true.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

RE: Ketogenic Diets for Endurance Athletes

> How many of them have actually taken the time to adapt to low

> carb diets to

> see how they do? If the prevailing wisdom is that you need

> lots of carbs,

> and therefore a high enough percentage of athletes follow

> this advice, then

> perhaps there are too few athletes who have been eating low

> carb to reach a

> conclusion?

" Yes. Those are great questions and ones that I've considered. The answer

is unknowable, of course, until such time as that happens BUT the current

evidence is almost 100% against -- I can't think of any champions in any

sport who eat low carb full time or even most of the time. "

I guess that what I'm saying is that without evidence of elite athletes

trying the diet long enough to see the results, I'm not sure that what you

cite is evidence against at all.

Ron

[Guest guest]

>Yes. Those are great questions and ones that I've considered. The answer

>is unknowable, of course, until such time as that happens BUT the current

>evidence is almost 100% against -- I can't think of any champions in any

>sport who eat low carb full time or even most of the time.

>

>Ron

>

Hi Ron,

There isn't a whole lot of research on high fat diets for athletes. I

am not inclined to call any diet low carb. It's a pet peeve - why not

use the largest macronutrient and explain what you are eating most of,

not what you are limiting? For athletes in general, they can consume a

much higher percentage of carbs and remain more ketogenic than the

sedentary populous because of energy output. Also, I think missing from

this discussion is the hormonal problems high carb eating causes - the

sugar highs and lows, if you will. Bonking and " hitting the wall " are

common terms for the crashing lows that come with glycogen depletion,

and/or sugar consumption before/during exercise. Anyhoo, here is

evidence that higher fat diets have favorable outcomes on endurance

athletes' performance (not that Gatorade and Powerbars will want you to

know such things). Carbs were " adequate " in this study. So long as

calories were sufficient, the higher fat group did not compromise

anaerobic power.

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/1/52

" A potential risk of increasing the fat content of the diet by reducing

carbohydrate content is compromised muscle glycogen stores [5]. One way

to determine if glycogen stores are depleted is to use an anaerobic

performance test like the Wingate Anaerobic Power test. Although both

aerobic and anaerobic pathways contribute to ATP resynthesis during the

all-out cycle against a fixed resistance for 30 seconds of exercise

[27], the oxidative contribution is very small. Therefore, the Wingate

test is considered a good measure of anaerobic power [14]. There was no

decrease in anaerobic power on the medium or high fat diet, implying

that glycogen stores were not seriously depleted. Replacing carbohydrate

with fat in a hypocaloric diet may reduce VO2 max due to reduced muscle

glycogen stores [5]. However, in the present study, the carbohydrate

levels, which were similar in all diets due to an increase in caloric

intake, appeared to be sufficient to maintain muscle glycogen stores. "

So the idea that endurance folks need 65-70% carbs is misplaced at best,

nutrient poor at worst. This IS the dogma that is preached. What are

endurance athletes really eating? Just because they end up on Wheaties

boxes, doesn't mean they are all about carbs. I think most elite folks

keep their training plans secret, else their competitors may copy.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Personally, I just don't notice much of a

> difference. My diet has evolved a great deal, but I have never been able to

> form any kind of a reasonable correlation between my diet and athletic

> performance. Then again, I've never been particularly scientific about it.

> Just careful enough to note that there haven't been any dramatic changes.

> Although I do find that when I talk to my food before I eat it, my

> kettlebell numbers are a lot higher.

Really? For the sake of time-efficiency, I just put my food and my

kettlebell in the same corner for a while so they can play with each

other, while I do other things. I don't know what they talk about but

they must appreciate the company because it makes my kettlebell

numbers higher AND the food tastes much better.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> It is plainly not that simple. Perhaps that is why universities offer

> degree programs in exercise physiology, sports medicine and the like.

I stand corrected. Forgive my over-simplifying.

I thought that glycogen burning jump-started a run and then declined

as fat-burning took over.

> Basic biology looks at the average Joe, and athletes are not average

> folks.

You know, I wonder if body fat levels make a difference. Maybe when

body fat levels get to a critical low the body will emphasize fat

sparing over glycogen sparing, in order to prevent fat levels from

going into the danger zone.

> Runners are weight lifters - it is a powerful high volume style training

> for the legs. Body builders are a different class of weight lifter, of

> course. Gluconeogenesis is one way to get more glucose from lactate and

> amino acids. But what little research I have seen indicates that the

> body will adapt to the fuels presented to it over time. Endurance

> athletes become better fat oxidizers in the absence of glycogen stores.

> I don't know if body builders have been studied much in this regard. I

> think fat phobia is common in both groups generally.

Hmm, here's a point of curiosity: if the body adapts to fat

metabolism, would the body also adapt to STORE more fat for this

purpose, like it adapts to store more glycogen in the legs?

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/1/52

> " A potential risk of increasing the fat content of the diet by reducing

> carbohydrate content is compromised muscle glycogen stores [5]. One way

> to determine if glycogen stores are depleted is to use an anaerobic

> performance test like the Wingate Anaerobic Power test. Although both

> aerobic and anaerobic pathways contribute to ATP resynthesis during the

> all-out cycle against a fixed resistance for 30 seconds of exercise

> [27], the oxidative contribution is very small. Therefore, the Wingate

> test is considered a good measure of anaerobic power [14]. There was no

> decrease in anaerobic power on the medium or high fat diet, implying

> that glycogen stores were not seriously depleted. Replacing carbohydrate

> with fat in a hypocaloric diet may reduce VO2 max due to reduced muscle

> glycogen stores [5]. However, in the present study, the carbohydrate

> levels, which were similar in all diets due to an increase in caloric

> intake, appeared to be sufficient to maintain muscle glycogen stores. "

This seems like a poorly constructed study. The carb levels shouldn't

have been the same in every group! That introduces more than one

variable change in every group and doesn't allow for isolating any of

them. It would have made more sense to have one base-group of

moderate or typical consumption, then another group that matched it

for calories but ate higher fat and lower carb, then another group

that matched the fat group for fat and the carb group for carb but ate

increased calories to make up the difference, for example. More

groups could be added, but the calorie-matched groups that vary fat

and carb percentages should be a minimum!

Or else, the maximum they could measure is whether adding fat to a

meal reduces your ability to turn the carbs to glycogen, which seems

like relatively unimportant information.

Do they cite previous studies finding that performance on this

30-second test correlates well with total glycogen stores? Maybe I'm

over-simplifying something again, but on the surface, it seems

ridiculous to think that a 30-second test could reflect total glycogen

stores.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>I thought that glycogen burning jump-started a run and then declined

>as fat-burning took over.

>

>

Yes, this is true generally. And for a trained endurance athlete, the

time to the switch over to fat is reduced. But if I am racing in a 5k,

then I may well be at or above 85% of my maximum heart rate for the

duration of the run. Now, while the trained athlete has a higher

anaerobic threshold, I still will be pushing over the edge at times

(especially the final push to the finish). All I am say is there are so

many variables. As you get into better shape, you will have a higher

heart rate and still be at aerobic levels. Competitions will require

both fat and glycogen at varying rates.

>You know, I wonder if body fat levels make a difference. Maybe when body fat

levels get to a critical low the body will emphasize fat

>sparing over glycogen sparing, in order to prevent fat levels from

>going into the danger zone.

>

>

I don't know if anyone could ever get so low on body fat that glycogen

amounts would be more, but it's an interesting idea that I have not

heard anything about.

>

>Hmm, here's a point of curiosity: if the body adapts to fat

>metabolism, would the body also adapt to STORE more fat for this

>purpose, like it adapts to store more glycogen in the legs?

>

>Chris

>

The body is already pretty good at fat storage, but yes, intramuscular

fat stores do increase directly with fitness levels. This is not to say

people get fatter, they just have more fat within muscle tissue for

use. Trained people do become more energy efficient, which is another

adaptation.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> " Yes. Those are great questions and ones that I've

> considered. The answer

> is unknowable, of course, until such time as that happens BUT

> the current

> evidence is almost 100% against -- I can't think of any

> champions in any

> sport who eat low carb full time or even most of the time. "

>

> I guess that what I'm saying is that without evidence of

> elite athletes

> trying the diet long enough to see the results, I'm not sure

> that what you

> cite is evidence against at all.

>

It is interesting to me that we actually got into this same discussion way

back during the agnostic/atheist debate when we first encountered each

other. In that argument you implied (or maybe even stated. Can't recall

clearly) that the fact that 98% of all of the people who have ever lived

have believed in the existence of god is not evidence for the actual

existence of god. Now you are making the same argument -- that the

observable fact that 98% or more of all of the champions of all of the

sports in the world eat a relatively high carb diet is not evidence that

high carb diets are athletically superior to high fat ones.

When I look up the word evidence it sure seems to me that both of these

facts are strong evidence in support of each thesis.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The

broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh

the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a

mourner's face.

3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects

admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Clearly they don't prove anything at all but they do seem to be strong

evidence in support.

Perhaps you are using the word evidence in a way with which I am unfamiliar?

Ron

[Guest guest]

> 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The

> broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. >Scientists weigh

> the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

Well, I would argue that in both cases, someone thinking about the issues

carefully should conclude that these things are not relevant in forming a proper

conclusion or judgement. In the case of athletes and carbs, for the reasons

stated.

> 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a

> mourner's face.

That does not apply.

> 3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects

> admissible as testimony in a court of law.

>

That obviously does not apply.

So, I'd say that you haven't made a strong case at all. the fact that people

believed at one time that the world was flat was not evidence that it was flat.

The fact that most people believe that eating saturated fat causes heart disease

is not evidence that eating saturated fat causes heart disease.

>

>

> Clearly they don't prove anything at all but they do seem to be strong

> evidence in support.

No evidence at all.

>

> Perhaps you are using the word evidence in a way with which I am unfamiliar?

>

I really doubt it. I am using it in the way that it is usually used in this

context. I think that you are desperately trying to change the meaning to win

your point.

[Guest guest]

Curiously, although my sent email shows that the entire email was sent, the top

half of this email has been truncated. I think that the context can be derived

by RBJR's previous post.

-------------- Original message --------------

> > 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The

> > broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. >Scientists

weigh

> > the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

> Well, I would argue that in both cases, someone thinking about the issues

> carefully should conclude that these things are not relevant in forming a

proper

> conclusion or judgement. In the case of athletes and carbs, for the reasons

> stated.

>

> > 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a

> > mourner's face.

> That does not apply.

>

> > 3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects

> > admissible as testimony in a court of law.

> >

> That obviously does not apply.

> So, I'd say that you haven't made a strong case at all. the fact that people

> believed at one time that the world was flat was not evidence that it was

flat.

> The fact that most people believe that eating saturated fat causes heart

disease

> is not evidence that eating saturated fat causes heart disease.

> >

> >

> > Clearly they don't prove anything at all but they do seem to be strong

> > evidence in support.

> No evidence at all.

> >

> > Perhaps you are using the word evidence in a way with which I am unfamiliar?

> >

> I really doubt it. I am using it in the way that it is usually used in this

> context. I think that you are desperately trying to change the meaning to win

> your point.

>

[Guest guest]

>This seems like a poorly constructed study. The carb levels shouldn't

>have been the same in every group! That introduces more than one

>variable change in every group and doesn't allow for isolating any of

>them.

>

>

Beggars can't be choosers, iow, I am having a hell of a time finding any

research on high fat diets and athletic performance. The kcal levels

weren't all the same either. And when training, not having enough

energy in itself is a bad no no and will not have favorable results.

>Do they cite previous studies finding that performance on this

>30-second test correlates well with total glycogen stores? Maybe I'm

>over-simplifying something again, but on the surface, it seems

>ridiculous to think that a 30-second test could reflect total glycogen

>stores.

>

>Chris

>

Dunno, but it's a good observation methinks. And can't muscle glycogen

levels be sampled from the muscle directly? That makes me wonder about

when a diet becomes ketogenic, at what level are glycogen stores? Those

training might go into ketosis to spare glycogen. It probably varies,

just as fat burning varies individually among athletes. Heck, some high

carb eaters might even be ketogenic when training hard. It reminds me

of what Dowling, 2:13 marathoner wrote: " Some say there's no magic

formula. I say there is. It's just that the magic is different for

everyone. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> So, I'd say that you haven't made a strong case at all. the

> fact that people believed at one time that the world was flat

> was not evidence that it was flat. The fact that most people

> believe that eating saturated fat causes heart disease is not

> evidence that eating saturated fat causes heart disease.

Okay. I concede your point on the God issue. You are correct.

I do not at all concede the point on carbs/fat as the nature of the evidence

is much different. In this case we have athletes freely choosing their food

sources and those who eat and properly process carbohydrate win. Sure they

live within a paradigm that tells them that the proper diet is carbohydrate

and that skews the strength of the evidence but I think that it clearly

still stands on its own and is strong.

> >

> >

> > Clearly they don't prove anything at all but they do seem

> to be strong

> > evidence in support.

> No evidence at all.

> >

> > Perhaps you are using the word evidence in a way with which

> I am unfamiliar?

> >

> I really doubt it. I am using it in the way that it is

> usually used in this context. I think that you are

> desperately trying to change the meaning to win your point.

See, this is what makes you so much fun to fight with. You always have to

get the dig in. An assessment of my intentions and my desperate state. A

failure to respect that fact that I might be arguing from a position of

truth and integrity however wrong I might be. Same thing you did to Chris

in my previous example.

Too much fun!

Ron

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> I do not at all concede the point on carbs/fat as the nature of the

> evidence

> is much different. In this case we have athletes freely choosing their

> food

> sources and those who eat and properly process carbohydrate win. Sure they

> live within a paradigm that tells them that the proper diet is carbohydrate

> and that skews the strength of the evidence but I think that it clearly

> still stands on its own and is strong.

I think it is evidence on its own, but that it is not strong-- that it

is weak evidence primarily due to the ambiguity of its implications

and what it reflects.

Your point implicitly assumes that most athletes experiment with the

full range of conceivable diets, which seems to me highly likely to be

untrue. Were it actually true, I think your point would be strong.

Otherwise, it isn't.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>I do not at all concede the point on carbs/fat as the nature of the evidence

>is much different. In this case we have athletes freely choosing their food

>sources and those who eat and properly process carbohydrate win. Sure they

>live within a paradigm that tells them that the proper diet is carbohydrate

>and that skews the strength of the evidence but I think that it clearly

>still stands on its own and is strong.

>

No, elite athletes are choosing based on the recommendations of

professionals. And unless you are privy to their diet plans pre-race,

then this is an assumption. Besides, these recommendations are

beginning to crack and change towards moderation of all macronutrients

for best performance. Chew on this from the fat-friendly crowd.

Deanna

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.marathonguide.com/training/articles/MandBFuelOnFat.cfm

(excerpt follows, read the whole thing at the website)

WHICH DIET IS BETTER: HIGH FAT OR HIGH CARBOHYDRATE?

There has been considerable research in the past decade on the effect of

diet composition on endurance. Prior to now, endurance athletes usually

followed a high-carbohydrate diet with the rationale that enhanced

glycogen stores are known to fuel superior training and marathon race

performances.

Most sports nutritionists recommend a diet that supplies 6 to 8 grams of

carbohydrates per kilogram of body weight. These levels of dietary

carbohydrate can easily reach 400 to 600 grams per day. This adds up to

1,600 to 2,400 calories of carbohydrate per day. This type of diet

doesn't leave room for adequate amounts of fat or protein.

The downside of a high-carbohydrate diet, especially a diet loaded with

sugar, is reduced fat metabolism and fatigue. This is largely due to

chronically stimulated insulin levels. The effects of insulin can last

up to eight hours, especially after a big dose of carbohydrates, such as

you might get from a big plate of spaghetti and rolls followed by a bowl

of sorbet.

Initially, studies found that high-fat diets, where fats supply 60

percent or more of the calories, showed promise as a means to better

endurance. Fat burning is increased on high-fat diets, even at rest.

Exercise tests showed higher endurance in subjects who had been eating

high-fat diets in comparison with high-carbohydrate diets.

At issue, however, was the intensity of exercise used for the tests.

High-fat diets improved endurance at relatively low-intensity levels.

When the intensity was increased to mirror race situations, the

advantage disappeared. The higher- intensity exercise required more

carbohydrate, and the subjects simply lacked adequate glycogen to

continue for extended periods. The lesson is that you can reduce your

reliance on carbohydrate, but you can't eliminate it.

We now know that both high-carbohydrate and high-fat diets cause fatigue

and poor performances. The best diet is probably somewhere in between:

one that supplies enough fat to stimulate fat metabolism and maintain

production of testosterone and estrogen and also supplies enough

carbohydrate to keep the brain and nervous system happy and the glycogen

stores filled. Many sports scientists are recommending a basic diet that

supplies 50 percent carbohydrate, 30 percent fat, and 20 percent

protein, with additional carbohydrates after hard or long-duration training.

------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> > So, I'd say that you haven't made a strong case at all. the

> > fact that people believed at one time that the world was flat

> > was not evidence that it was flat. The fact that most people

> > believe that eating saturated fat causes heart disease is not

> > evidence that eating saturated fat causes heart disease.

>

> Okay. I concede your point on the God issue. You are correct.

>

> I do not at all concede the point on carbs/fat as the nature of the evidence

> is much different. In this case we have athletes freely choosing their food

> sources and those who eat and properly process carbohydrate win. Sure they

> live within a paradigm that tells them that the proper diet is carbohydrate

> and that skews the strength of the evidence but I think that it clearly

> still stands on its own and is strong.

>

We are trying to resolve the issue of whether a low carb diet helps or hinders

elite athletic performance, where it is known that very few (if any?) have

actually tried the diet. We also know that the prevailing wisdom is that you

need carbs, and possibly still that you need to load up on carbs. To resolve

such an issue, where it would be expected that the great majority would not be

low carbing it, the simple fact that they don't isn't evidence that the high

carb diet works better. If I asked you the question, 'we know that, possibly

despite the facts, conventional wisdom has led virtually all elite athletes to

eat high carb diets. Do you think that it's possible that they have been

misled?' and you answered, 'well I have pretty good evidence that they have not

been misled - they are all eating high carb diets', that would sound pretty

strange. I think that it is, basically, kind of a circular reasoning.

> > >

> > >

> > > Clearly they don't prove anything at all but they do seem

> > to be strong

> > > evidence in support.

> > No evidence at all.

> > >

> > > Perhaps you are using the word evidence in a way with which

> > I am unfamiliar?

> > >

> > I really doubt it. I am using it in the way that it is

> > usually used in this context. I think that you are

> > desperately trying to change the meaning to win your point.

>

> See, this is what makes you so much fun to fight with. You always have to

> get the dig in. An assessment of my intentions and my desperate state. A

> failure to respect that fact that I might be arguing from a position of

> truth and integrity however wrong I might be. Same thing you did to Chris

> in my previous example.

Well, sorry if I took the remark about using 'evidence' in a way with which you

were unfamiliar to be rather sarcastic.I think that I am blatantly using the

word 'evidence' in the common way.

>

> Too much fun!

>

> Ron

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> On 7/18/05, RBJR wrote:

>

> > I do not at all concede the point on carbs/fat as the nature of the

> > evidence

> > is much different. In this case we have athletes freely choosing their

> > food

> > sources and those who eat and properly process carbohydrate win. Sure they

> > live within a paradigm that tells them that the proper diet is carbohydrate

> > and that skews the strength of the evidence but I think that it clearly

> > still stands on its own and is strong.

>

> I think it is evidence on its own, but that it is not strong-- that it

> is weak evidence primarily due to the ambiguity of its implications

> and what it reflects.

>

> Your point implicitly assumes that most athletes experiment with the

> full range of conceivable diets, which seems to me highly likely to be

> untrue. Were it actually true, I think your point would be strong.

> Otherwise, it isn't.

>

Exactly. Given that we all seem to admit that few, if any, elite athletes have

tried 'low carb' diets, that conventional wisdom dictates that they should not,

and also that conventional dietary wisdom can be very wrong, we should not

except the fact that they do not use such low carb diets as any kind of strong

evidence. And given that these facts are implicit in the question, the fact that

they don't use it isn't evidence at all.

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> On 7/18/05, RBJR wrote:

>

> > I do not at all concede the point on carbs/fat as the nature of the

> > evidence

> > is much different. In this case we have athletes freely choosing their

> > food

> > sources and those who eat and properly process carbohydrate win. Sure they

> > live within a paradigm that tells them that the proper diet is carbohydrate

> > and that skews the strength of the evidence but I think that it clearly

> > still stands on its own and is strong.

>

> I think it is evidence on its own, but that it is not strong-- that it

> is weak evidence primarily due to the ambiguity of its implications

> and what it reflects.

>

> Your point implicitly assumes that most athletes experiment with the

> full range of conceivable diets, which seems to me highly likely to be

> untrue. Were it actually true, I think your point would be strong.

> Otherwise, it isn't.

>

> Chris

Let me try to clarify something. What will count as evidence is affected by the

context of the question that is being resolved. Without having delved at all

into some of the issues that are discussed here, and someone were asked as to

whether low carb diets were good for elite athletic performance, they might say,

and not incorrectly, that the fact that none of them used such a diet was

evidence that they didn't work well. If, then, you were to qualify the question

a bit, and say, 'well, that's what's under dispute. We are questioning whether

this conventional wisdom, which has led to them not even trying this kind of

diet, is, in fact, incorrect', the question and context have shifted somewhat.

In this latter context, the fact that these athletes like to eat carbs before

athletic events is not evidence at all.

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> We now know that both high-carbohydrate and high-fat diets cause fatigue

> and poor performances. The best diet is probably somewhere in between:

> one that supplies enough fat to stimulate fat metabolism and maintain

> production of testosterone and estrogen and also supplies enough

> carbohydrate to keep the brain and nervous system happy and the glycogen

> stores filled. Many sports scientists are recommending a basic diet that

> supplies 50 percent carbohydrate, 30 percent fat, and 20 percent

> protein, with additional carbohydrates after hard or long-duration

> training.

Now what I want to know is, if they did the same study, but 75% of the

fat came from coconut oil or MCT oil, how would the results have

changed?

In a diet dominated by long-chain fats, the most efficient thing to do

with the fats is store them. Breaking them down for energy would be

less efficient, but worth it if there was insufficient carbohydrate

for energy. Breaking them down and *then* building them back up (into

glycogen) is doubly inefficient, but I would *guess* would probably

increase to some degree with heavy glycogen-requiring training.

(By the way, I just thought of a second point: did this study use

trained athletes? It could be that carbs are needed for endurance in

an untrained athlete, but one who is trained for high glycogen stores,

and then continues to train for such under a high-fat regimen might

adapt to that need.)

Anyway, if MCFAs and SCFAs are used, suddenly it becomes INefficient

to store the fat, because it will have to be elongated, and more

efficient to break them down. Thus there is a considerable shift of

the efficiency equilibrium towards breaking down to sugar and building

up glycogen and away from storing as fat. If the need for glycogen is

present during the diet, I would suspect that a greater amount of fat

would be turned into glycogen on a diet emphasizing coconut oil and/or

MCT oil.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Clearly they don't prove anything at all but they do seem to be strong

>evidence in support.

Hmm, since most people nowadays believe that a low-fat high-carb diet is

healthiest, is that then evidence in favor of the proposition that a

low-fat high-carb diet is in fact healthiest?

>Perhaps you are using the word evidence in a way with which I am unfamiliar?

The fact that most or all elite athletes today carb-load is evidence that

most or all elite athletes today believe in carb-loading.

-